So…. you are correct, there WAS a strap. OP911 ch. 8 describes its use: it attached to the shoulder rest brackets and passed under the armpits and around the back of the gunner. Seems like once you're strapped in, you could do a lot more contorting without compromising accuracy.

Strapped in the gunner is rather committed to shooting it out with his opponent, a little like an old west gunfight. Admiral King was quoted as saying that shields were mostly for psychological comfort whereas the tubs were to provide splinter protection, even from below!

The shield mounted on the 20-mm mount was "MORE" protection that the bulwarks around most 20-mm guns. In 1940-41 the bulwarks installed as part of the King Board AA Improvement Mods were thicker and hardened steel that offered a degree of splinter protection. But, as the war progressed, the heavy gage bulwarks (and shields on 5-in gun mounts) was replaced with a "lighter weight-saving" 10 gauge steel. At least on the destroyers.

The gunner likely could release the strap pretty quickly if he had to.

10 gauge is only 1/8" thick, pretty light stuff not really capable of stopping much of anything. Understandably top weight became an increasingly critical issue as the war progressed and both radar and light AA batteries increased on ships of already marginal stability.

The STS steel was preferred for such uses if available. Even nominal 30 cal bullets can penetrate some degree of steel, my son and I would fire Russian 7.62x54R Czech Silvertip rounds at a manhole cover at 350 yards and make it look like Swiss Cheese. Certainly the STS steel with it's hardening would be more resistant for a similar thickness.

The Fletcher's were designed with a "belt" alongside machinery spaces of 30 lb (3/4") STS steel to provide some strafing and splinter protection. Initially some superstructure was constructed of aluminum, but material shortages changed that to mild steel with a penalty of about 50 tons. As a result the 5" director was lowered six feet and various STS protection was reduced such as shields etc.

These are great photos, and the last one illustrates very well the point I'm struggling with: it also raises a question.

Is the gunner strapped into the gun? That is, are his shoulders "mated" to the shoulder rests with some sort of harness? In the last image, the gunners balance would cause him to be holding himself up using his hands on the triggers. This in turn seems like it would be difficult to keep the gun trained on the target (I'm assuming the gun is balanced such that it does not take much effort to move - but that could be a bad assumption).

Here's where I'm having trouble. The image below shows a very to-scale (incomplete - missing the cradle, shoulder rests, other things) gun/mount, with a body puppet (using my basic measurements - I'm 6'1"). Even with the mount fully elevated, the angle of the gunners body seems impossible for any sort of actual use... unless the gunner is strapped to the gun. Lowering the gun would make it even more awkward.

Anyway, that is why I raised the question in the first place - I just don't see how this disk could be useful as a stand: but then, I've never fired a gun this large :

The gunner is strapped into the shoulder stock. The purpose isn’t to make sure he doesn’t duck. It is to allow him to better use the muscles of his legs and torso to swing the gun.

My guess is the disk on the pedestal allows the gunner to more comfortable fire over a larger range of elevations by giving him two different level to stand on. The wheel on the side of the pedestal adjusts the height of the trunnions. To fire the comfortably at high elevation, the trunnion of the gun need to be cranked up so the gunner doesn’t need to squat down and then look up to fire the gun. But if the trunnions is cranked all the way up, then the gunner will find himself standing on top toe to fire at low elevation. The disk gives the gunner a higher step to stand on so he can fire comfortable at low ekevation even if the trunnion is cranked up. This ensures in the heat of battle he or his loader does need to crank the trunnions up and down like crazy.

_________________Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

What you are looking at likely were for the 40-mm guns Fire Control Directors. From mid-1942 the directors were either Mk 51 (most common) or Mk 49. Late in the war there were a host of newer GFCS (Mk 57, Mk 63, etc) with radar and had directors that were "basically" more elaborate Mk 51 directors.

What you are looking at likely were for the 40-mm guns Fire Control Directors. From mid-1942 the directors were either Mk 51 (most common) or Mk 49. Late in the war there were a host of newer GFCS (Mk 57, Mk 63, etc) with radar and had directors that were "basically" more elaborate Mk 51 directors.

MK 51 can also control the 5”/38 Mount’s. If you look at the Iowa in original fit in 1943, there were the same number of mk51 directors as quad 40mm Bofors. Each mk51 controlled 1 quad 40mm bofor mounts. By early 1945, the Missouri had 4 more MK 51s, two on either side of the tower mast, and 2 extra ones over the midship 40mm clusters. This allowed the four mk51s on either side of the forward and aft centerline MK37 5” directors to be repurposed as auxiliary directors for the 5”/38 Mounts, to,be used for bringing 5” battery onto a close range kamikaze target faster than could the much more elaborate and sophisticated mk37 directors.

_________________Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

The flexibility of the director arrangement for close in fast moving targets is a substantial advantage. The 5"/38 became much more effective for such targets with the use of the proximity fuse, additionally in many cases there would be much less parallax than with the Mk37 directors located high in the superstructure. Also use as a backup in case of battle damage or multiple targets could be critical.

In effect a brilliant system for the time. Fast Battleships became something to avoid more than a target.

Those below decks could tell the tempo of an unfolding attack, the bark of the 5", then the hammering of the 40's and finally the twenties coming into play, a rising crescendo!

The flexibility of the director arrangement for close in fast moving targets is a substantial advantage. The 5"/38 became much more effective for such targets with the use of the proximity fuse, additionally in many cases there would be much less parallax than with the Mk37 directors located high in the superstructure. Also use as a backup in case of battle damage or multiple targets could be critical.

In effect a brilliant system for the time. Fast Battleships became something to avoid more than a target.

Those below decks could tell the tempo of an unfolding attack, the bark of the 5", then the hammering of the 40's and finally the twenties coming into play, a rising crescendo!

There were significant deficiencies in US naval AA direction even late in the war. But Japanese kamikaze tactics and relatively calm seas masked these deficiencies.

_________________Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Hi Everyone,I'm looking for some info on kits to portray the New Jersey as she looked in her Korean War fit. Does anyone make a kit for the 1950-52 time period? If not would it be possible to convert the WWII version to Korean War? I'm looking mainly at 1/700 scale due to space limitations. I've been researching on the web some and haven't found a lot of technical details of the changes to the ship from '45 to '50. About all I've found was removal of the 20mm AA and sea planes. I know she got major upgrades prior to Vietnam and the Mideast but not sure what was initially done when she was recommissioned for Korea. My father-in-law served on her during the period and I would like to take a stab at building a reasonably accurate kit. I'm only an average-skilled builder so it won't be perfect. Any comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.ThanksJohn

As a NEW JERSEY vet (Vietnam) I am currently working on a 1:200 scale NJ for the 1967-69 time frame and I have done extensive research on this ship (my ship!). To answer your question:

No, there are no models of the Korean War version of any IOWA class BB that I'm aware of. When the ship was recommissioned for Korea, the seaplanes/catapults were removed, the 20mm mounts - gone; and various other small details that mainly involve the fore/main mast & RADARs, etc. You will probably do best by finding as many photos as possible of the ship from the 1949-1953 time frame. The only Booklet of General PLans I found at NARA was dated 1955 so that's post-Korea and not what you're needing. A BoGP of MISSOURI would be helpful and one from 1950 is available. PM me and I'll send you a copy. HOWEVER - the main mast is incorrect for NEW JERSEY. But, that's only one detail.

As for the WWII NEW JERSEY as a kit in 1/700 - I think there may be a couple out there - look for the MISSOURI model if NEW JERSEY isn't available as those two ships were more similar than IOWA/WISCONSIN. You can remove the 20mm molded mounts and so forth and any 40mm tubs that would have been removed on NEW JERSEY. I only have one 1950 photo of NJ and I will include that with the BoGP. You should check out NAVSOURCE online as there may be some appropriate photos of NJ there, as well. At 1/700 scale, I think you're mainly interested in the correct masting & electronics to make the model fairly correct. See what's available for this time frame from the 3rd party PE companies for detailing, etc. Of the kits available, there may be one that might have the correct Main Mast for the period (the 3 point mast attached to the after stack); the pole mast of WWII vintage was long gone.

I have a couple questions for those who have more than a passing knowledge of the details of the Iowa class battlewagons - specifically BB63, the USS Missouri. While pouring over the plans drawn by Tom Walkowiak from The Floating Drydock, and also referring to TFD's E-book on the Missouri, I ran across two things he shows that I can't find any details on anywhere else.

The first is near Frame 79, right near the end of the waterway. These plans and the TFD E-book show what they refer to as "Fuel and Diesel Fill" on both port and starboard sides.

Attachment:

2018-08-24_18-58-32.jpg [ 28.29 KiB | Viewed 355 times ]

Is this something that really existed back in 1945? If so, does anybody know anything more about it - like what it really looked like?

The other item is also along the bow waterways, about Frame 60, and is referred to on these plans as "Leadman's Platform (Hinged Up) P/S".

Attachment:

2018-08-24_19-05-37.jpg [ 29.25 KiB | Viewed 355 times ]

Again, is this something that was on the real ship, or is it a figment of someone's imagination? Is it really did exist, what was it used for and what did it look like?

Every time I study these plans, I find things new details that I missed until now. This is one complicated ship!

Thanks folks!

_________________Larry Steiner

Currently working on (and will be for years to come!)1:200 USS Missouri (Monster Mo)

I'm away from my shop (books/plans/references), but will reply to your first question in a day or so.

As for your 2nd question, YES - the hinged Leadsman Platform did exist. I can't actually recall it being used during our 1968-69 commission, but it was a real item. It was a small platform that was folded down and used in shallow water when it was necessary to "sound" for the bottom. Here is a photo from BB-63 in 1944 showing the Leadsman taking a sounding:

Attachment:

BB-63 K-4542 Leadsman.JPG [ 63.82 KiB | Viewed 324 times ]

The caption reads: "Leadsman taking soundings, as the battleship enters port during her shakedown cruise, circa August 1944. Note line handler assisting the leadsman and talker standing by."

I do recall the Bos'n taking soundings using a weighted line with knots tied every foot which was dropped and when the weight hit the bottom the knot closest to the water was noted and the line pulled in. I think different colors were used for specific lengths, etc.

Whatever this fueling feature is, it's not very prominent. Looking through my photos of BB63, some taken standing almost right by this item, it's not visible, being outside the netting installed along the lifelines to keep small visitors from going overboard.

Even back during WWII the ship had diesel backup generators which would not run on Bunker oil.

Thanks, Hank! Yes, it tells me a lot. After I posted this question, I was reading through TFD's E-book on the Missouri and actually did find reference to this on the Gibbs & Cox model of this ship. This model does indeed show this platform, but nowhere is there any reference to what it is or what it was used for. I guess I'm wondering about the railing. Was it removed when the platform was folded down, or was it left on?

Also, to any of you folks who are reading this: Does anybody know the length of a Stokes litter that was used on the BB63 during WWII?

Attachment:

2018-08-26_12-26-09.jpg [ 100.79 KiB | Viewed 296 times ]

_________________Larry Steiner

Currently working on (and will be for years to come!)1:200 USS Missouri (Monster Mo)